Constitutional Law

WSJ Editorial Skews Meaning, Purpose of Pay Equity Act

In a recent, not terribly surprising, Wall Street Journal editorial, a congressional bill aimed at easing the ability of workers to access courts to challenge employment discrimination is attacked as a boon for trial lawyers. The editorial, as pointed out by a MediaMatters For American analysis, wildly misrepresents the intent of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which Congress will likely consider this session, and the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which the act addresses. In the 2007 case, the justices ruled 5-4 that Ledbetter’s lawsuit over discrimination in pay had been filed too late, dismissing the case and overturning lower court rulings in favor of Ledbetter. Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear for about 20 years for Goodyear, initially drawing similar salaries of her male counterparts. When she retired, however, a she discovered that her pay eventually began to seriously lag behind those of her male counterparts. Since her loss at the high court, Ledbetter has become a champion for pay equity, speaking at last year’s Democratic National Convention, where she called on lawmakers to support legislation addressing pay equity.

According to the WSJ’s editorial the high court properly dismissed Lilly Ledbetter’s “creative theory that decisions made decades ago by a former boss affected her pay all the way to retirement, so that each paycheck was a new discriminatory act and thus fell within the statute of limitations.” The Lilly Ledbetter Act, which The New York Times reported has the support of Congress and President-elect Barack Obama, would loosen restrictions on when employees could lodge pay discrimination lawsuits against their employers. The WSJ editorial sees such a move as “pure gold” for trial lawyers.

Citing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in Ledbetter, the MediaMatters analysis notes that “if the pay discrimination occurs in the form of a woman receiving a smaller pay raise than her male counterparts, it may be impossible for a woman to sue when the discrimination first occurs.” Ginsburg wrote, “She may have little reason even to suspect discrimination until a pattern develops incrementally and she ultimately becomes aware of the disparity.”

Full post as published by ACS Blog on January 12, 2009 (boomark / email).